• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Research Shows NO Global Warming

Mike

Well-known member
Sunday, November 16, 2008 11:09 PM EST


Research further debunks warmism


A federal government dominated by far-left Democrats will be a Godsend for radical environmentalism. As it is, to combat global warming, President-elect Obama intends to spend more than $100 billion the government doesn't have to further research alternative energy, and will push for laws that would make electricity, gasoline and heating oil more expensive, devastate the coal industry and make the construction of coal-fired power plants prohibitively expensive.

The Obama administration will be guided by the likes of James Gustave Speth, dean of Yale's School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, who on the eve of the election lamented how green groups "have grown in strength and sophistication, but the environment has continued to go downhill, to the point that the prospect of a ruined planet is now very real." Behind his alarmism is an unyielding belief in man-made global warming, the case for which disintegrates further almost daily.

The theory took a devastating hit in October when two warmists, David Douglass of the University of Rochester and John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, said their latest research revealed "variations in global temperatures since 1978 ... cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide."
For 30 years, Professor Christy has been in charge of compiling and analyzing data from NASA's eight weather satellites, which daily take more than 300,000 temperature readings around the globe. The data show today's average global temperature is the same as it was in 1979. An unambiguous cooling trend since 2004 has corresponded precisely with a period of reduced solar activity and radiance.

Yet the theory of man-made global warming continues to disintegrate. Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientists are baffled by the worldwide spike in atmospheric methane in the last year. Warmism holds that such a natural increase in methane, which is 25 times more effective in trapping heat than CO2, is impossible, and it should have caused the planet to warm, not cool.

The evidence points to warming and cooling as natural cycles unrelated to man. However, facts and truth won't matter much in an Obama administration advised by greens who share the president-to-be's yen for socialism and environmental radicalism.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Mike said:
Sunday, November 16, 2008 11:09 PM EST


Research further debunks warmism


A federal government dominated by far-left Democrats will be a Godsend for radical environmentalism. As it is, to combat global warming, President-elect Obama intends to spend more than $100 billion the government doesn't have to further research alternative energy, and will push for laws that would make electricity, gasoline and heating oil more expensive, devastate the coal industry and make the construction of coal-fired power plants prohibitively expensive.

The Obama administration will be guided by the likes of James Gustave Speth, dean of Yale's School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, who on the eve of the election lamented how green groups "have grown in strength and sophistication, but the environment has continued to go downhill, to the point that the prospect of a ruined planet is now very real." Behind his alarmism is an unyielding belief in man-made global warming, the case for which disintegrates further almost daily.

The theory took a devastating hit in October when two warmists, David Douglass of the University of Rochester and John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, said their latest research revealed "variations in global temperatures since 1978 ... cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide."
For 30 years, Professor Christy has been in charge of compiling and analyzing data from NASA's eight weather satellites, which daily take more than 300,000 temperature readings around the globe. The data show today's average global temperature is the same as it was in 1979. An unambiguous cooling trend since 2004 has corresponded precisely with a period of reduced solar activity and radiance.

Yet the theory of man-made global warming continues to disintegrate. Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientists are baffled by the worldwide spike in atmospheric methane in the last year. Warmism holds that such a natural increase in methane, which is 25 times more effective in trapping heat than CO2, is impossible, and it should have caused the planet to warm, not cool.

The evidence points to warming and cooling as natural cycles unrelated to man. However, facts and truth won't matter much in an Obama administration advised by greens who share the president-to-be's yen for socialism and environmental radicalism.

Three questions for you to ponder.

1. Are increases in global temperature over the last 600,000 years correlated with increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide?

2. What is happening to levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide?

3. Is there any relationship to increases in levels of carbon dioxide and the industrial revultion?

I'm sure you can do your google cut and paste trick to find a couple of studies that refute the obvious answers to those questions, but the number of studies and climatologists that support the view that we are in crisis is overwhelming.

Cherry picking can be fun but it ain't all that productive.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
I'm sure you can do your google cut and paste trick to find a couple of studies that refute the obvious answers to those questions, but the number of studies and climatologists that support the view that we are in crisis is overwhelming.

Cherry picking can be fun but it ain't all that productive.

I haven't googled since this one has been close for quite some time.

Two thousand years ago it was a much warmer climate than what we have today. 3000 years ago it was extremely warm and this research is based on ice cores out of Greenland.

Man probably has some to do with it, but volcanic actions far exceed anything we do. Take for instance sulfur. We are paying dealy for low sulfur diesel, yet one active volcano puts out more sulfur in one year than man ever has since the start of the industrial revolution.

I believe we should be good stewards of our planet. - i.e. do not do stupid things, but at the same time, I think there is some vain thinking out there on this global warming thing.

The warmer the earth becomes, the more water is evaporated into the atmosphere. That results in more clouds and lightening which creates the ozone we are supposedly depleting. How do you think the earth attained the "balance" to begin with? Man just can't go adjust the thermostat or open a window. We aren't even in the bug dust of comparison with the globe as a whole. Volcanic eruptions are certainly beyond our control.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
The warmer the earth becomes, the more water is evaporated into the atmosphere. That results in more clouds and lightening which creates the ozone we are supposedly depleting. quote]

Ozone depletion and global warming are two separate, unrelated problems - but don't feel bad, lots of people get them mixed up. I used to myself.
 

andybob

Well-known member
I agree with backhoe, we have a duty to husband our planet in a responsible way, but the facts remain, the main causes of temperature change are natural. Archeological evidence shows shifts in temperature, the cycles of fallow deer and gazelle in excavations over thousands of years in digs in the middle east show several changes in climate as each of these species dominates, dissapears then re-appears in hunter gatherer populations. Another more famous example is the "Iceman" from Italy/Switzerland, if the temperature has kept him covered for 5000 years, this indicates a period of cooling over this time, and we have now reverted to the temperatures in line with those of 5000 years ago. In recorded history we have the cooling with devistating results during the 'dark ages' in Europe, and I remember the belief in the 1960's that we were entering a new ice age, with cold winters and record snowfalls in Europe.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
andybob said:
I agree with backhoe, we have a duty to husband our planet in a responsible way, but the facts remain, the main causes of temperature change are natural. Archeological evidence shows shifts in temperature, the cycles of fallow deer and gazelle in excavations over thousands of years in digs in the middle east show several changes in climate as each of these species dominates, dissapears then re-appears in hunter gatherer populations. Another more famous example is the "Iceman" from Italy/Switzerland, if the temperature has kept him covered for 5000 years, this indicates a period of cooling over this time, and we have now reverted to the temperatures in line with those of 5000 years ago. In recorded history we have the cooling with devistating results during the 'dark ages' in Europe, and I remember the belief in the 1960's that we were entering a new ice age, with cold winters and record snowfalls in Europe.

That's all fine and well, except that at current projections CO2 levels are going to far exceed any levels that the planet has experienced in the last 600,000 years.

So yes, climate change is natural, but we are going to have an atmosphere where CO2 levels are at unprecedented levels.

It would make for an interesting experiment if so much wasn't at stake.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
andybob said:
I agree with backhoe, we have a duty to husband our planet in a responsible way, but the facts remain, the main causes of temperature change are natural. Archeological evidence shows shifts in temperature, the cycles of fallow deer and gazelle in excavations over thousands of years in digs in the middle east show several changes in climate as each of these species dominates, dissapears then re-appears in hunter gatherer populations. Another more famous example is the "Iceman" from Italy/Switzerland, if the temperature has kept him covered for 5000 years, this indicates a period of cooling over this time, and we have now reverted to the temperatures in line with those of 5000 years ago. In recorded history we have the cooling with devistating results during the 'dark ages' in Europe, and I remember the belief in the 1960's that we were entering a new ice age, with cold winters and record snowfalls in Europe.

That's all fine and well, except that at current projections CO2 levels are going to far exceed any levels that the planet has experienced in the last 600,000 years.

So yes, climate change is natural, but we are going to have an atmosphere where CO2 levels are at unprecedented levels.

It would make for an interesting experiment if so much wasn't at stake.

If you think we actually know what CO2 levels were 600,000 years ago you are a pretty gullible person. If you think we actually know what temperatures were thousands of years ago you are a pretty gullible person.

Heck we can not even accurately compare temperatures to what they were a hundred years ago. Thousands of reporting stations have been shut down over past 30 years or so. When less sources are averaged in to equations the results will be tarnished. Reporting stations 50 years ago use to be in some rural hay meadow and now they are in asphalt covered Airports.

Global warming is a hoax and money maker. You gullible man!
 

MsSage

Well-known member
Ozone depletion and global warming are two separate, unrelated problems
Seems they are related


Increases in solar UV radiation as a result of ozone depletion could affect terrestrial and aquatic biogeochemical cycles, thereby altering both sources and removal sinks of greenhouse gases, for example carbon dioxide, and possibly other trace gases including man-made pollutants. Likely effects of this may include an increase in air pollution in urban centres, and acid rain in rural areas.

Whilst increases of UV radiation may affect the production and removal of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, ozone depletion itself can influence the global climate. Ozone is also a greenhouse gas, and as well as filtering out the incoming UV radiation from the Sun, can trap much of the infrared (IR) heat trying to escape the Earth to space. If stratospheric ozone is destroyed, ozone’s contribution to the greenhouse effect is reduced. This could offset some of the global warming due to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Ironically, as the ozone layer gradually repairs itself during the 21st century, this cooling potential will be lost. More significantly, the replacement chemicals to CFCs, the HCFCs, which themselves do little harm to the ozone layer, are very strong greenhouse gases, and are further contributing to the potential problem of global warming.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
Ozone depletion and global warming are two separate, unrelated problems - but don't feel bad, lots of people get them mixed up. I used to myself.

You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that.

CO2 was what 500 years ago?

And now it has increased a little.

Okay so what is the norm?

That "norm" is part of the ecosystem balance. Ozone, CO2, Oxygen - whatever. There will never be perfect balance but the earth arrived at the "norms" you want without man's intervention. We just deal with it.

Two miles high it is hard to breath if you are not accustom to it. I would hate to see it like that at sea level. We shouldn't be stupid and wasteful but at the same time a lot of this global warming whining is much like the Y2K was when everyone was convinced the earth would stop spinning.

I applaud anyone who is leaving this planet cleaner for our future generations.

At the same time, sulfur emissiion laws are stupid. Go to Sulfur Springs or just come sniff my well water. Look at how much sulfur comes out of a volcano. I hate it when we fail stupid and we do that often.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Facts: Carbon dioxide is not the major greenhouse gas (water vapor is).

2 Carbon dioxide accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect, as carbon dioxide's ability to absorb heat is quite limited.

3 Only about 0.03 percent of the Earth's atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively).

4 The sun, not a gas, is primarily to "blame" for global warming -- and plays a very key role in global temperature variations as well.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
MsSage said:
Ozone depletion and global warming are two separate, unrelated problems
Seems they are related


Increases in solar UV radiation as a result of ozone depletion could affect terrestrial and aquatic biogeochemical cycles, thereby altering both sources and removal sinks of greenhouse gases, for example carbon dioxide, and possibly other trace gases including man-made pollutants. Likely effects of this may include an increase in air pollution in urban centres, and acid rain in rural areas.

Whilst increases of UV radiation may affect the production and removal of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, ozone depletion itself can influence the global climate. Ozone is also a greenhouse gas, and as well as filtering out the incoming UV radiation from the Sun, can trap much of the infrared (IR) heat trying to escape the Earth to space. If stratospheric ozone is destroyed, ozone’s contribution to the greenhouse effect is reduced. This could offset some of the global warming due to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Ironically, as the ozone layer gradually repairs itself during the 21st century, this cooling potential will be lost. More significantly, the replacement chemicals to CFCs, the HCFCs, which themselves do little harm to the ozone layer, are very strong greenhouse gases, and are further contributing to the potential problem of global warming.

Thanks for posting this.

It's my fault for poor writing.

What I meant to say was that the global warming is not being caused by holes in the ozone layer. They are separate problems because ozone depletion is caused by CFCs and global warming by greenhouse gases. There are interactions between the two phenomena, but in terms of causation - the human end of the problem - they are separate and unrelated.

More lightning - which does generate ozone - is not going to protect us from global warming.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
CO2 was what 500 years ago?

And now it has increased a little.

Okay so what is the norm?

I applaud anyone who is leaving this planet cleaner for our future generations.

At the same time, sulfur emissiion laws are stupid. Go to Sulfur Springs or just come sniff my well water. Look at how much sulfur comes out of a volcano. I hate it when we fail stupid and we do that often.

Actually it's not my opinion. It's the opinion of the vast majority of climatologists. I don't have enough knowledge about how the climate works to have my own opinion. I suppose it is my opinion that they are correct.

CO2 levels have increased more than a little.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23590725-5009760,00.html

And you are correct about the "norm". There is no norm. But there are levels of CO2 concentration - highs and lows - that the numbers have fluctuated between for thousands of years, and we are set to go way past the highs.

You should watch Gore's movie. If you don't like him - ignore him. Just watch it for the charts - particularly the one on CO2 concentration. Even if you want to disregard the politics in the movie, the charts are based on well-agree upon data - although I'm sure one of our googler here can find a wingnut site debunking them.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
badaxemoo said:
Ozone depletion and global warming are two separate, unrelated problems - but don't feel bad, lots of people get them mixed up. I used to myself.

You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that.

CO2 was what 500 years ago?

And now it has increased a little.

Okay so what is the norm?

That "norm" is part of the ecosystem balance. Ozone, CO2, Oxygen - whatever. There will never be perfect balance but the earth arrived at the "norms" you want without man's intervention. We just deal with it.

Two miles high it is hard to breath if you are not accustom to it. I would hate to see it like that at sea level. We shouldn't be stupid and wasteful but at the same time a lot of this global warming whining is much like the Y2K was when everyone was convinced the earth would stop spinning.

I applaud anyone who is leaving this planet cleaner for our future generations.

At the same time, sulfur emissiion laws are stupid. Go to Sulfur Springs or just come sniff my well water. Look at how much sulfur comes out of a volcano. I hate it when we fail stupid and we do that often.

Well put Boogie...and to think....we almost elected Al Gore President and he's never done one minute of research on cow farts and cow belching.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
badaxemoo wrote:
I don't have enough knowledge about how the climate works to have my own opinion. I suppose it is my opinion that they are correct.

These are words you will never see a conservative write here.As they seem to think they know all.... :roll: :roll:
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
nonothing said:
badaxemoo wrote:
I don't have enough knowledge about how the climate works to have my own opinion. I suppose it is my opinion that they are correct.

These are words you will never see a conservative write here.As they seem to think they know all.... :roll: :roll:

Badaxemoo....weather changes. That's all we can be certain of. And the air must contain enough oxygen and carbon dioxide to sustain animal and plant life. Beyond that I know little, nor do most experts.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
nonothing said:
badaxemoo wrote:
I don't have enough knowledge about how the climate works to have my own opinion. I suppose it is my opinion that they are correct.

These are words you will never see a conservative write here.As they seem to think they know all.... :roll: :roll:

Badaxemoo....weather changes. That's all we can be certain of. And the air must contain enough oxygen and carbon dioxide to sustain animal and plant life. Beyond that I know little, nor do most experts.

Aw come one now. Before Gore invented the internet, he wrote the specs for the atmostphere and this planet was designed accordingly :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
Badaxemoo....weather changes. That's all we can be certain of. And the air must contain enough oxygen and carbon dioxide to sustain animal and plant life. Beyond that I know little, nor do most experts.

So what you are really saying here is that the science of climatology is useless because the experts don't know anything more than "the air must contain enough oxygen and carbon dioxide to sustain animal and plant life".

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

With all due respect, some of the laws passed are far more ridiculous.

Stupid thinking worsens the cause when there is proof that these laws just make things worse for the environment. It makes people think all such measures are similar when in fact, some actually do work.

Knee jerk BS laws do not benefit anyone, unless you are in a business that happens to have a soda straw stuck in the gravy bowl. (pork barrel sucking at its best)

We should be smart about our choices and good stewards of the environment. We can all agree on this I am sure.

Stupid laws make the whole effort appear to be just as stupid and some things are indeed way beyond our control. We should worry about things we can control.

I could tell you many of the things I have already done but that is simply my personal choices and my self gratification. You wouldn't know whether I was telling you straight up or making up things.

There are also things I have done in the past that I regret. These are lessons learned that I will never partake in again.

Laws do not make you take the best measure in everything you do. It is personal choice to recycle to extremity, use clean air tactics etc. You well know this.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
TexasBred said:
Badaxemoo....weather changes. That's all we can be certain of. And the air must contain enough oxygen and carbon dioxide to sustain animal and plant life. Beyond that I know little, nor do most experts.

So what you are really saying here is that the science of climatology is useless because the experts don't know anything more than "the air must contain enough oxygen and carbon dioxide to sustain animal and plant life".

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

Oh they can break it down a whole lot more and give speeches to captive audiences like yourself for hours on end....fact is the two I mentioned are essentials for life. If you don't beleive me stick your head in a bag with everything but oxygen in it. You won't be yelling "I need nitrogen". Maybe it's just too simply for a Penn State guy.
 
Top